IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

I doubt that the New Black Panther Party even has 10,000 dollars. They are a fringe hate group with about 2,000 members. The lame stream right wing news likes to spotlight any absurd thing they say and insinuate that they are typical black people.

As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

On his Fox Business show, Lou Dobbs suggested that the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group, constitutes Obama's base. Dobbs quoted criticisms of Obama by the NBPP and then said: "I mean, what is going on here? This president is starting to get, at the very least, friction, if not outright attacks coming from his base."

The judge questioning Zimmerman's truthfulness could undermine the defendant's credibility if it is brought up at trial, which could happen, and may complicate how his defense presents him as a witness, said Orlando-area attorney Randy McCLean, who is a former prosecutor.

"The other key witness, unfortunately is deceased," McClean said. "Basically, Zimmerman is going to be asking the jury to believe his version of the facts ... As the case stands now, his credibility is absolutely critical to the case."

Zimmerman Prosecutor, State Attorney Angela Corey, is now threatening to sue Harvard Law School for criticism from Alan M. Dershowitz of her handling of the Zimmerman case, and specifically, her affidavit of probable cause, which omitted key information regarding the case, specifically information that is favorable to the defense.

Vs.

Apparently, Corey recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about Dershowitz's criticism of some of her actions.

I think Corey has her hands more than full with the Zimmerman case, and that she already looks incredibly foolish, per Dershowitz's criticisms. She should think twice about picking a fight with him. She's just making herself look even more incompetent. Seems she believes that the State needn't inform the judge of evidence favorable to the defense and that any criticism of her prosecution should be silenced...

I like how Dershowitz closed his article:

Alan M. Dershowitz, the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School wrote:Fortunately, truth is a defense to such charges.

I will continue to criticize prosecutors when their actions warrant criticism, to praise them when their actions deserve praise, and to comment on ongoing cases in the court of public opinion.

If Angela Corey doesn’t like the way freedom of expression operates in the United States, there are plenty of countries where truthful criticism of prosecutors and other government officials result in disbarment, defamation suits and even criminal charges.

We do not want to become such a country.

That's gonna sting!

As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

Richard Kuritz, a former prosecutor who worked with Corey but now works as a defense lawyer, supported her position. Kuritz said Corey had no obligation to include exculpatory evidence in the affidavit.Kuritz said some of the public that once praised her for arresting Zimmerman has now turned on her as evidence that may support the defense, as there is in most cases, is being made public."The only reason Dershowitz has an argument to make is because she's doing everything ethically she's supposed to do: She's turning over the evidence she's supposed to," Kuritz said.He added that Dershowitz could indeed face civil action for making accusations that Corey has committed a crime."To suggest that she's committing any crime, Dershowitz is way off on that," Kuritz said.Dershowitz's response: "It can't be libel if it's true. That goes back to Thomas Jefferson."

It looks like this is a shady area, Alan Dershowitz may well have grounds for saying what Corey did was illegal, but the intricacies of the law are beyond my understanding as a layman.

Prof. SCHECK: I think the problem is that under the law now, number one, prosecutors are not obligated to provide exculpatory evidence to grand juries who are considering whether or not to indict a defendant. And number two, there's no real requirement at all that prosecutors disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants prior to the time they decide to plead.

CONAN: Laurie Levenson, is that right? I know in trial, the prosecution's required to turn that over, but not before a plea bargain?

Prof. LEVENSON: Well, ethically, I think prosecutors should. But we do have some Supreme Court law out there that sort of says there's certain exculpatory evidence you must turn over and that impeachment evidence, maybe not. In many different courts around this country, they've gone the extra step and said, look. No playing games. There's too much at stake here. Prosecutors, turn over this information. Barry's right. In the grand jury, there is no federal law that requires the turning over of exculpatory evidence, but there is in the state side. And once again, I think good prosecutors, prosecutors who are trying to do the right thing, will turn it over. They'll turn it over all the way through sentencing.

So basically, Dr.Mcoy is right, exculpatory evidence is not required to be handed over before a plea is made from the defendant, but there seems to be some controversy and instances where it still would be required and the failure to do so is at a minimum considered unethical. Alan Dershowitz may have been making sensationalist remarks, or as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School feels confident in his claim. Either way, Angela Corey calling up Harvard and threatening to sue them, IF what was reported was true, creates a conflict of interest for her.

Mick wrote:It looks like this is a shady area, Alan Dershowitz may well have grounds for saying what Corey did was illegal, but the intricacies of the law are beyond my understanding as a layman.

Prof. SCHECK: I think the problem is that under the law now, number one, prosecutors are not obligated to provide exculpatory evidence to grand juries who are considering whether or not to indict a defendant. And number two, there's no real requirement at all that prosecutors disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants prior to the time they decide to plead.

CONAN: Laurie Levenson, is that right? I know in trial, the prosecution's required to turn that over, but not before a plea bargain?

Prof. LEVENSON: Well, ethically, I think prosecutors should. But we do have some Supreme Court law out there that sort of says there's certain exculpatory evidence you must turn over and that impeachment evidence, maybe not. In many different courts around this country, they've gone the extra step and said, look. No playing games. There's too much at stake here. Prosecutors, turn over this information. Barry's right. In the grand jury, there is no federal law that requires the turning over of exculpatory evidence, but there is in the state side. And once again, I think good prosecutors, prosecutors who are trying to do the right thing, will turn it over. They'll turn it over all the way through sentencing.

So basically, Dr.Mcoy is right, exculpatory evidence is not required to be handed over before a plea is made from the defendant, but there seems to be some controversy and instances where it still would be required and the failure to do so is at a minimum considered unethical. Alan Dershowitz may have been making sensationalist remarks, or as a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School feels confident in his claim. Either way, Angela Corey calling up Harvard and threatening to sue them, IF what was reported was true, creates a conflict of interest for her.

There is indeed debate, as there always is. But, Prof. Scheck is talking about a grand jury (as Prof. Levenson noted). Corey skipped the grand jury. She went right to the judge. I would argue that the 4th amendment requires her to disclose exculpatory evidence/facts to the judge in her affidavit of probable cause.

As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

FRIENDLY REMINDER Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.

Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 2 visitors

When someone sends you some shocking e-mail and suggests that you pass it on, don't. At least not until you've first confirmed its truth at snopes.com, the Internet's authority on e-mailed myths. This includes get-rich schemes, Microsoft/AOL cash giveaways, and--especially lately--nutty scare-tactic messages about our Presidential candidates.More tips from David Pogue